Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.7.3-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the working hours in question are those for quite special but, nonetheless, very important areas. Now that we have common legislation on working hours within the EU, it is in fact incomprehensible and unacceptable that key groups such as young doctors, train drivers and air crew, seafarers and other such groups should be exempt. On the contrary, it might be thought that these particular groups might have a special need for legislation of this kind. I believe that this situation is due to a number of factors, and partly to particularly bad traditions. In the case of the mobile professions, for example, there are poor conditions for safety work of a practical and technical nature. At the same time, employers have had a great need for continuity of service or production, and this has become the decisive factor.
It should also be remembered that, as we have mentioned here, there are also traditions of this kind where young doctors are concerned. One example – which a number of people here have mentioned – is that of young doctors’ dependence upon senior physicians and professors. Someone talked of feudal traditions, in which case what is meant is old traditions which force young doctors to work in a way and to a degree that is harmful. Their professional future depends upon their doing this.
Traditions such as these must be broken. Most people seem to be in agreement with this. Where agreement breaks down is in the wish to postpone the necessary changes, perhaps for financial or practical reasons. This is something which this Parliament must oppose. We must attach much more importance to the protection of workers than is implied by this type of short-term, expedient reasoning. I think we should also remember the need to emphasise that unusual, different and, in various ways, mobile labour markets should also be brought under the umbrella of this directive. In fact, we are getting more and more professional groups who are working under mobile conditions, together with more and more individuals in the labour market who have mobile working conditions. If we have a situation in which in which it is possible to have exemptions from the labour market directive, then we are going to have more and more groups who will be able to maintain that specifically their own workforce should be exempt.
I therefore think that it is a very good thing that we have obtained these two reports. I want to give them my wholehearted support, but I want at the same time to draw attention to a third factor. We have to think not only about showing consideration for employees and employers. There are also third parties involved. A high proportion of the groups of employees concerned provide services to consumers or operate utilities on their behalf. We are concerned here, for example, with passengers at risk of travelling in aircraft flown by tired-out pilots and of patients at risk of being treated by exhausted doctors. This is naturally unacceptable. We must therefore set limits upon what the general public can be expected to accept in this regard.
We cannot, of course, accept transition periods of seven or thirteen years. My Group and I should like to have seen us go much further in certain respects, but we are nonetheless satisfied with the developments which have taken place and think that the two reports are excellent."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples